If I were Barack Obama, I don’t know whom I would choose for a running mate.
In a typical year, it would be enough to select a VP candidate who balances the ticket, or helps deliver a key state.
This year, with Obama just barely winning the most hard-fought nominating contest in living memory, it is vital for him to choose someone who can unite the party.
Some Clinton supporters think the only way for him to do that is to “throw the Hillary haters under the bus and ask Hillary to be his running mate.”
I am not convinced that Hillary is the best choice for Obama, but she’s far from the worst choice.
It would be much worse for Obama to choose someone who would particularly alienate the very voting blocs that favored Hillary in the primaries.
Two great posts by Natasha Chart make this point better than I can:
Veepness stakes: Please no Webb, DINOs
Veepness stakes: Securing the Clinton bloc
Do click over. These are worth your time.
UPDATE: Longtime Edwards supporter Neil Sinhababu gives you “Ten Good Reasons for an Obama/Edwards ticket.” I’m not sure that would be Obama’s best move, but he could do a lot worse. Edwards has said publicly he’s not interested in running for VP again, though.
SECOND UPDATE: David Yepsen looks at the pros and cons of having Hillary on the ticket and concludes, “Don’t Go There, Obama.”
3 Comments
It will definitely be a tough call
for Obama. I agree with you, Hillary would not be the worst choice. I think there are many strong arguments for a unity ticket of Obama-Hillary. It would be awkward in many ways, but the upside of at least partially re-energizing the Hillary base could be worth it.
When I look at all the other names being considered, I always come back to Bill Richardson. He would bring so much by all the traditional standards: executive experience as governor, serious foreign policy credentials, likely excitement in an important voting block not strongly in Obama’s corner (hispanics), and strength in a key geographic area. I can’t think of another VP candidate with similar offerings for Obama. I guess the big question is, would a ticket of with an African-American and Hispanic be too much for those that are hesitant about Obama to begin with? The fact that your name is “Bill Richardson” probably helps, but it could still be an issue.
rf Sun 8 Jun 5:01 PM
No Richardson
because the crazy repubs would tear him up with his alleged “touchy-feelyness” towards women and that is the last thing Clinton supporters would want to hear about when healing. I’m not saying I don’t like Richardson, I went to his campaign events and stuff, but he just has too much baggage besides his woman problems including nuclear info leaks.
isucyclones94 Sun 8 Jun 6:18 PM
I don't know the details
but I believe some baggage is there. Richardson was on Gore’s short list and on Kerry’s short list, and got passed over (even though Kerry famously didn’t like Edwards much).
I think it makes more sense to put Richardson in the cabinet.
I wouldn’t have a problem with him as VP, but if there is anything that could be alienating to women, Obama should leave that alone.
In a normal year, it might be worth it to have Richardson help put away NM and improve Obama’s chances in CO.
It would be better for Obama to pick someone who endorsed Clinton in the primaries.
desmoinesdem Sun 8 Jun 8:35 PM